It all comes down to what was meant by “and under the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment.
I’ve read before that Trump’s peeps presented an exhaustive analysis of usage of that term before and during the time that the 14th Amendment was ratified, and it is very clear that it did NOT apply to visitors to the country but to people legally domiciled here.
I hope SCOTUS does the right thing.
Should be “and SUBJECT to the jurisdiction thereof”.
“It all comes down to what was meant by “and under the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment.”
There is no question as to what that means, it is just a question as to whether or not the Court will pretend to not know what it means.
Legal arguments are helpful, but in the end, “hope” is what the case depends on.
The English language, and especially from two-hundred years ago, is often ambiguous, that is it can be interpreted to mean vastly different things. This is the case with the phrase “under the jurisdiction of”. Based on over forty years of trial and appellate work, what I usually see happening when it comes to statutory construction is that a judge in most cases decides what they want to do and then beats a path through the law to get there. The historical analysis presented in the opposing briefs is helpful in that process, but usually not determinative. That is, what matters most is what the judge actually wants to do, and so we hope that their wishes for the future align with ours. From that perspective, I am hopeful, given the present court’s make up.
The ruling should have been limited to the children of permanent resident aliens, as that was the case that was brought before the court. Somehow, the ruling expanded the universe to be all children born in the United States, not just the children of permanent resident aliens.
I'd like to know why?
-PJ
SCOTUS will not do the right thing. Instead of addressing the fundamental question they will focus on the issue of the legitimacy of using an executive order, overturn the order and leave the underlying question unanswered.
If a ruling invalidates the claim of Kamala Harris to be a US citizen (based on her parent's being citizens of Jamaica and India at the time of her 1964 birth), then you can consider how it also would retroactively invalidate all judicial appointments and legislation approved via her tie-breaker votes in the Senate of 2021-2025 (as they would legally violate the 12th Amendment of the Constitution).